2011 San Francisco Silver Eagles to be slabbed with special label

rodzm

Looks like San Francisco minted SAEs will not hide their true identity as to their mintage location. They will now be slabbed with a special label:

Article
'S' Mint No Longer Secret
By Numismatic News
June 09, 2011

The 2011 San Francisco silver American Eagle bullion coins minted without a mintmark will not hide their true identity as Numismatic Guaranty Corp. has issued a special slab for the new coins.

2012 U.S. Coin Digest: Bullion
2012 U.S. Coin Digest: Bullion
This easy-to-search pricing and identification download is solely focused on U.S bullion coins.
Get your download today!

NGC explained June 7 that because the S-mint Eagles will be distinguishable only by the fact that they are shipped by the Treasury in large “monster boxes” labeled San Francisco Mint, it will label only coins from bulk submissions in the still-sealed original shipping containers.

It is suggested that dealers contact NGC for further instructions about this service.

A special “Early Releases” designation will be placed on the label of coins sent to NGC during the first 30 days of issue.

Contact NGC at P.O. Box 4776, Sarasota, FL 34230. Telephone toll-free at (800) NGC-COIN, or email Service@NGCcoin.com.

Zoins

<< <i>the S-mint Eagles will be distinguishable only by the fact that they are shipped by the Treasury in large “monster boxes” labeled San Francisco Mint, it will label only coins from bulk submissions in the still-sealed original shipping containers. >>

I'm still holding out for a S mintmark overstrike which I think would be infinitely cooler than an insert. It's cool enough that I wouldn't be opposed to Coin Vault or someone selling a bunch of these to get them made if needed.

ricko

" It's cool enough that I wouldn't be opposed to Coin Vault or someone selling a bunch of these to get them made if needed."

Do you mean manufacture an error?? Just to sell it?? How different would that be from doctoring or AT'ing a coin??

Cheers, RickO

jmski52

This is such a dumb idea that I don't think it will even generate any controversy.

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>It's cool enough that I wouldn't be opposed to Coin Vault or someone selling a bunch of these to get them made if needed. >>

Do you mean manufacture an error?? Just to sell it?? How different would that be from doctoring or AT'ing a coin?? >>

It is important because it would be a statement to encourage the re-birth of key date coins for moderns.

I think this is making an artistic and collector statement that the Mint should add S mintmarks themselves. As I've mentioned in other threads, I think the Mint is purposely withholding mintmarks to prevent the creation of modern key date coins (W-mint circulation coins, S-mint ASEs, etc.). This coin would be a response to that and an encouragement for the Mint to produce mintmarks they way they were originally intended, as a way to identify the origin of the coin and not to withhold them when it suits them.

morgansforever

Still don't know why the top brass at the Treasury
decided to go with no mm. Who makes that decision?
S mm would have generated tons of buzz.

RB1026

Unless some sort of physically distinguishing feature emerges (like a die crack or ??, as unlikely as that is), I can't imagine that over time the "NGC says it came from SF" label will mean much. Of course there are hoards of plastic collectors out there so what do I know. Having said that, I don't care for First Strike etc. either so don't use me as a barometer

LanLord

What does the law that created the bullion SAEs state as far as marking them?

I would imagine it's probably addressed in the law that the coins can be struck at any US mint, but not that it necessarily be identified on the coin.

OPA

<< <i>Still don't know why the top brass at the Treasury
decided to go with no mm. Who makes that decision?
S mm would have generated tons of buzz. >>



Bullion ASE's sold directly to the AP's & not the public, never had nor will they have a Mint Mark.

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>Still don't know why the top brass at the Treasury
decided to go with no mm. Who makes that decision?
S mm would have generated tons of buzz. >>

Bullion ASE's sold directly to the AP's & not the public, never had nor will they have a Mint Mark. >>

From a business perspective, it makes sense to not have mintmarks on the bullion/commerce coins and to have them on the "collector" proof and unc versions. This way they can charge more for the proof and unc (non-commerce) versions which have used P, S, and W mintmarks. The business issue the Mint may have adding mintmarks to bullion pieces is that a key date may be worth more than their collector proof/unc versions which would depress demand/revenues for the pricier collector pieces.

So I think this is a good business decision for the Mint, but it is likely a form of "product line management" to manage the coin collecting community. I think the same can be said for the lack of W-mintmarks for circulation coins struck there in the 70s and 80s. Because of this, I think date/mm collecting is no longer as pure as it used to be.

kranky

Mintmarks are getting to be more like the way Canada uses privy marks. The mint uses mintmarks if it suits their marketing plan, or doesn't use them if it doesn't suit them.

Zoins

<< <i>Mintmarks are getting to be more like the way Canada uses privy marks. The mint uses mintmarks if it suits their marketing plan, or doesn't use them if it doesn't suit them. >>

I think this is true and that is why I think a S-mintmark overstrike would make a meaningful statement on the commercialization of mintmark usage or lack thereof.

19Lyds

<< <i>Still don't know why the top brass at the Treasury
decided to go with no mm. Who makes that decision?
S mm would have generated tons of buzz. >>

It also might turn folks away from the non-S MM coins.

Actually, this entire thing is simply a manufactured market that some folks are going to buy into and as it so happens, one of the TPG's is running with the ball. They'll probably score a touchdown and these just might be a big hit.

I've asked DW via PM if PCGS will follow suit which may or may not make a bigger market. I mean it worked with the First Strike SAE's right?
Of course I'm not dissing First Strike but folks do need to realize that it's just a different slab label for the same old boring coin design as no numismatic differences exist between First Struck vs Last Struck vs West Point Mint SAE's vs San Francisco SAE's.

They are just bullion that happens to have a collectible feature.

A date.

Will there be a market for these?We'll know in about 6 months.

Zoins

<< <i>They are just bullion that happens to have a collectible feature.

A date. >>

Don't forget they are also legal tender coins.

And, to some, being bullion is better than being base metal and having a date

MsMorrisine

<< <i>Still don't know why the top brass at the Treasury
decided to go with no mm. Who makes that decision?
S mm would have generated tons of buzz. >>




they didn't want to potentially create a numismatic rarity similar to the 1995W Proofs.

this way, if you want to buy the label, you buy it.

otherwise, they are making bullion silver. you are buying american mint made silver product. their purposefor making the product is a silver play, not a numismatic mint mark play. that is secondary to them. And, they chose to skip the possibility of a numismatic rarity situation in this case.

Zoins

<< <i>they didn't want to potentially create a numismatic rarity similar to the 1995W Proofs. >>

Which is a numismatic loss that an overstrike can rectify. By stamping a mark on to the coin, the information that it came from SF can be associated directly with the coin (aside from wear, tooling, etc.).

silverman68

So much for buy the coin and not the label.

Some sort of different mint mark would have been a serious collector item.

19Lyds

<< <i>

<< <i>They are just bullion that happens to have a collectible feature.

A date. >>

Don't forget they are also legal tender coins.

And, to some, being bullion is better than being base metal and having a date >>

Right. I forgot about the fact that I could spend 3 of em at Starbucks for a cup-a-joe and still get change back.

scotty1419

Are there other examples in recent mint history of mintage at one location but the coin alluding to manufacture in another?

Caleb

<< <i>Are there other examples in recent mint history of mintage at one location but the coin alluding to manufacture in another? >>



A short answer, Yes.

Flash

They should just label them "2011 no S"

19Lyds

<< <i>They should just label them "2011 no S" >>

But.......but..........wouldn't that encompass EVERY 2011 SAE?

Raufus

<< <i>

<< <i>They should just label them "2011 no S" >>

But.......but..........wouldn't that encompass EVERY 2011 SAE? >>



As we all now know, PCGS has gotten in on the action. Given the prices realized it's worth it to get a monster box and have them graded. As has been said, talk about buying the slab and not the coin.

I wonder what these will bring in a few years. Gotta hand it to the TPGs - they can create a market out of anything.

I have to say, the slabs are cool. I just cant pull the trigger on one.

Who's buying? If you are, are you forking out the $ for a 70?

CaptHenway

Madness!
MADNESS!

Overdate

From a collector standpoint, I think that if TPG's identify bullion San Francisco coins with their mint of origin, they should do the same for West Point and any other facility striking Silver Eagles. Otherwise collectors wanting one from each mint and labeled with the mint of origin are out of luck.